I have written a few articles on the misrepresentation of scientific theory. I have pointed out that theories are not “fact.” They are not known to be true. In the past, I have used the word “consistent” rather than “true” in order to address a theory, but consistency is not really enough to describe how “good” a theory is. For this, “robustness” is needed. While this short discussion does not generate an actual metric for robustness, I use the term enough that I should at least explain what I mean, in general, when I say that a theory is or is not robust.« Continue »